25 Million New Voters Anyone? Supreme Court Strikes Down AZ Voter Law

So . . . if I told you that the Supreme Court was issuing an opinion on voter registration/proof of citizenship, and that Scalia was writing the opinion - what would you guess the outcome would be?

Some key quotes from the opinion:

The straightforward textual question here is whether Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §16–166(F), which requires state officials to “reject” a Federal Form unaccompanied by documentary evidence of citizenship, conflicts with the NVRA’s mandate that Arizona “accept and use” the Federal Form. If so, the state law, “so far as the conflict extends, ceases to be operative.” Siebold, supra, at 384. In Arizona’s view, these seemingly incompatible obligations can be read to operate harmoniously: The NVRA, it contends, requires merely that a State receive the Federal Form willingly and use that form as one element in its (perhaps lengthy) transaction with a prospective voter.

Seems pretty straightforward as a conflict. Which is what Scalia found. His reasoning is compelling.

So is his solution to Arizona's problem:

Since the power to establish voting requirements is of little value without the power to enforce those requirements, Arizona is correct that it would raise serious constitutional doubts if a federal statute precluded a State from obtaining the information necessary to enforce its voter qualifications.9 If, but for Arizona’s interpretation ofthe “accept and use” provision, the State would be precluded from obtaining information necessary for enforcement,
we would have to determine whether Arizona’s interpretation, though plainly not the best reading, is at least a possible one. . . . Happily,we are spared that necessity, since the statute provides another means by which Arizona may obtain information needed for enforcement.

Section 1973gg–7(b)(1) of the Act provides that the Federal Form “may require only such identifying information (including the signature of the applicant) and other information (including data relating to previous registration by the applicant), as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter registration and other parts of the election process.” At oral argument, the United States expressed the view that the phrase “may require only” in §1973gg–7(b)(1) means that the EAC “shall require information that’s necessary, but may only require that information.” . . .
Since, pursuant to the Government’s concession, a State may request that the EAC alter the Federal Form to include information the State deems necessary to determine eligibility, see §1973gg–7(a)(2); Tr. of Oral Arg. 55 (UnitedStates), and may challenge the EAC’s rejection of that request in a suit under the Administrative Procedure Act, see 5 U. S. C. §701–706, no constitutional doubt is raised by giving the “accept and use” provision of the NVRA itsfairest reading. That alternative means of enforcing its constitutional power to determine voting qualifications remains open to Arizona here.

In other words, Arizona can't enforce it's own law requiring documentation not required by the Federal Form - but it can demand that the Federal Form itself be altered to instruct registrants from Arizona to provide proof of citizenship, and if that request is denied, can sue to have it enforced.

So . . . (AZ) can sue (the Federal Govt.) to have it (the Law it's already choosing not to enforce) enforced.

I.e. nothing will change, illegals will vote and vote themselves politicians who will legalize them at the lowest penalty possible.

May as well give up on even the idea of uncorrupted elections tbqh. Between no ID check, speed-registration policies, no citizenship checks and the usual Govt. ineptitude and inabillity to do anything well, our election already are (and will continue to be) a joke. Half a step above Iran. Joy.

It's days liek today where I sometimes feel I've gone mad. Voting is the most cherished and vital right of citizens, to choose their Government. But we have a system that consciously chooses to ban the most basic protections that secure that right to only those who legitimately have the right to wield it.

So . . . if I told you that the Supreme Court was issuing an opinion on voter registration/proof of citizenship, and that Scalia was writing the opinion - what would you guess the outcome would be?

Some key quotes from the opinion:

Seems pretty straightforward as a conflict. Which is what Scalia found. His reasoning is compelling.

So is his solution to Arizona's problem:

In other words, Arizona can't enforce it's own law requiring documentation not required by the Federal Form - but it can demand that the Federal Form itself be altered to instruct registrants from Arizona to provide proof of citizenship, and if that request is denied, can sue to have it enforced.

Appreciate the explanation. Curious how a state that seemingly poured over all available options didn't know this however.

I.e. nothing will change, illegals will vote and vote themselves politicians who will legalize them at the lowest penalty possible.

May as well give up on even the idea of uncorrupted elections tbqh. Between no ID check, speed-registration policies, no citizenship checks and the usual Govt. ineptitude and inabillity to do anything well, our election already are (and will continue to be) a joke. Half a step above Iran. Joy.

Illegal immigrants are risking their status to vote? Jan Brewer is the Governor of AZ, I'm guessing she won despite all of the illegal voters? Illegal immigrants aren't worried about voting they are here to work and send their money back home. You think they have any idea who holds any local, state or federal office?

Lol, "risking their status". Just like they "risk their status" being here at all, or enjoying the various welfare programs, or getting free health care at Hospitals, right?

Illegal immigrants aren't worried about voting they are here to work and send their money back home. You think they have any idea who holds any local, state or federal office?

Of course they do, and the groups who support them (like La Raza and many others) do. And they organize them. They work the cracks in the system. And they absolutely do vote where they can get away with it.

We wouldn't know tho, because despite being in a country with a massive amopunt of voter fraud going on at every polling place....we can't ever seem to find any at all. Wonder if not ever checking/confirimg ID might be a part of the problem?

I'm all for a national voter ID card. I think you'd be disappointed by the lack of illegals who vote.

Originally Posted by Churchill

Lol, "risking their status". Just like they "risk their status" being here at all, or enjoying the various welfare programs, or getting free health care at Hospitals, right?

Of course they do, and the groups who support them (like La Raza and many others) do. And they organize them. They work the cracks in the system. And they absolutely do vote where they can get away with it.

We wouldn't know tho, because despite being in a country with a massive amopunt of voter fraud going on at every polling place....we can't ever seem to find any at all. Wonder if not ever checking/confirimg ID might be a part of the problem?

So . . . if I told you that the Supreme Court was issuing an opinion on voter registration/proof of citizenship, and that Scalia was writing the opinion - what would you guess the outcome would be?

Some key quotes from the opinion:

Seems pretty straightforward as a conflict. Which is what Scalia found. His reasoning is compelling.

So is his solution to Arizona's problem:

In other words, Arizona can't enforce it's own law requiring documentation not required by the Federal Form - but it can demand that the Federal Form itself be altered to instruct registrants from Arizona to provide proof of citizenship, and if that request is denied, can sue to have it enforced.

In other words... The folks writing laws in Arizona aren't very good at their jobs but they are very good at stirring up the sh!t